When I read the mission of the USPA, it does not mention advanced training as a function of the USPA.

The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a voluntary membership organization of individuals who enjoy and support the sport of skydiving. The association is incorporated in New York and follows the constitution and by-laws contained in the USPA Governance Manual. The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs.

The USPA has already established minimum safety recommendations for wingsuiting, just as they do for every other discipline. The recommendations and wingsuit FJC outline are in section 6-9 of the SIM. What makes wingsuiting so different that users can't read the SIM and the instruction manual that comes with the suit, as well as the warning labels?

I believe USPA resources would be better used by focusing on the only part of skydiving we all do: Fly and land a parachute safely. We have enough ratings and requirements already.

Adding another rating will only raise the price of general membership and tax an already overburdened system. I know your document says it won't, but it will increase work load, so prices will increase.

If USPA does not believe that a canopy coach/instructor rating should exist (something 100% of the membership uses, and something that causes most of our fatalities), and left that for each individual dz to mandate, what would make wingsuiting a better candidate for a new rating?

As a serious question..What percentage of active skydivers jump wingsuits? (and where do those numbers come from?)

and another...Are the number of wingsuit incidents/problems so pervasive that it is more important to create a wingsuit instructor over a canopy instructor?

I know you aren't arguing validity or qualifications of one rating over the other, I'm just wondering.